Valerio Sacchetto

That's exactly my point. you said nothing yet you had to write about other's attitude and as you can see that leaded to a (sort of) argument. Complaining is not the answer. If you have something useful to say (and i'm quite sure you have after months of practice) just do it, i want to hear your infos not your rants about the forum and that's what i think others want too. Allen Achterberg did a good job just some days ago without any comment about the state of the forum. That's all.

isn't THIS an attempt to start an argument?

You're quite confused about light properties. Color temperature is measured with a color meter and it has nothing to do with your aperture, it's a quality of light. The quantity of light is measured with a light meter and that's what is important to determine your aperture. It's important to know the color of light because while our brain adapts easily to different color temperatures film can't do so, it comes in two types: tungsten and daylight. That means that it's balanced for either one. If you're shooting under tungsten lights you'd use tungsten stock which gives you an accurate rendition of the colors of objects that are lighted by light that has a 3200K color temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightmeter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_stock#Color_temperature color temperature is not tied to the number of units you use, you have 4 tungsten lights that will give you, no matter how you arrange them, ~3200k A different story is for quantity, you can add them up to get a proper exposure for the stock you're using keeping in mind the mood you want to get. These are very basic questions and i suggest you to buy or borrow from your local library a book about photography it will tell you those essential things. Good luck!

I'm a long time lurker on this board and i started posting only recently (you know...when all your questions have already an answer it's hard to say something) so i "know" the (regular) members of this forum and i have your same feeling. That's why i decided to chime in and, maybe looking as an ass kisser, wanted to show my support to all the people who made this forum great and that keep trying hard to maintain it so. I'm the admin of a students' forum (not related to cinematography or movies) and i know how frustrating it can be to do your best and being bashed out of nothing, how tiring is to see people not even bother with some basic rules again and again, people that take what they need and give nothing in return (not even a thanks). I know how refreshing is the occasional "thank you, you're doing a great job" and since i hadn't many chances to say so (and many others too) I just want to let you know my appreciation for this board and the admiration for the people who share their knowledge. Thank you all.

You're absolutely right, mine was a voluntarily simplistic answer (for your same reason). The truth is much more complicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Environmental_effects

The theory is that from biodiesel you put in the atmosphere the same carbon the plant soaked from the air itself. Hence the result is 0. Using regulr fossil fuels you put in the atmosphere carbon that wasn't in the air before.

Tsk tsk, Jon. If you keep describing your work that way you'll never get an Aniston-like girl :P You should at least say you're into logistics :rolleyes:

Depending on the way you're shooting, aside from something above, i'd put a kino tube (i.e. out of the plastic case) in one or two of the unseen corners of the elevator, carefully balanced they should give you a nice overall light and if caught in some reflection they'd look like some high style, modern design elevator lights (if that's desirable!). But that's just a thought, i've never done that. Any opinion about this?

just remembered http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=15168 a lot of background noise but also a lot of useful informations (it's a pity such an informative thread got hijacked)

Blank rounds? But be aware they can do damage, a professional must be in charge of handling them. If the gun is to be used from a distance from any living thing or valuable object then blank rounds give you the real thing.

If you're going to only direct you should get as many references as you can and let the dp decide which stock to use. Phil Méheux may be more comfortable with kodak vision but your actual cinematographer may be not. I tell you this just because you may get the wrong results, and be disappointed. The look you want is a thing, the way to get it is another. Happy shooting! ;)

wall spreaders and/or autopoles are not an option? Otherwise you can put up some nice lighting with a lot of flexibility and really little rigging.

Well...obviously these are personal opinions, i have mine you have yours and that's just right. And here we're speaking of tastes. Plus my comment was actually quite lighthearted, I mean it's just a movie! I'm not arguing that they didn't do a good job, although i also don't know if they did, what i'm saying is that their work led to awful results. Sometimes (many times actually) you can do all your best but the result is not good, I accept the thing like an experiment gone wrong. You tried, you failed, you learnt something (i.e. don't do that again). Or do it again and make a lot of money :P The fact that it's good visually (again, not for me) doesn't make it a good movie. in fact i bothered very little about the "look" of it, it's a pointless movie made to bring as many people as posible to leave their money to the box office. I'm not so naive to think that movies are made for the sake of art but there is an implicit pact between producers and moviegoers, the deal is that i WANT to spend my money to go see a movie that i may like and the producer know that if he gives me something he'll get the money. He's interested in making decent movies. Cloverfield, for me, is all bells and whistles without any real product to sell. Now for the "i feel sorry" part is simply because if i make something i hope it to turn out good and loved by the people even if i do it just for the money. What if you make all your best to, let's say, draw a human figure and all you come up with is a lousy stick figure (that's me btw)? someone may feel sorry for you, for all your efforts that turned out not so well. Of course i don't "really" feel sorry for them, it's a figure of speech! In the end these are just my opinions and should be taken for what they are, i don't have the truth in me. ;)

some are just thirds of a "stop" (60, 75, 120...)

A friend of mine tricked me to go see that "thing". To experience the illness you must be very very sensible, i didn't see a single person feeling bad (except for the movie itself). The movie is just bad for too many things and i don't really want to go into details, i feel sorry for the crew because they must have done their work at their best but this doesn't show up in the final product. Even the people who usually are victims of this kind of movies (marketing, special effects and more marketing) were disappointed.

Sorry i didn't read the arcticle troughly but i noticed it expresses values in FC (illumination) and i glimpsed a "shooting by moonlight". That's different from shooting THE moon. What's been said before is just right, you can shoot THE moon at 24fps 180°.

I have an l-398 too. it's wonderful. I suffer a bit for the inability to accurately read really low light levels but sometimes it makes me more brave. never regretted. What phil says about the learning value is just too true :P . Mine agreed perfectly with an l-558c and a spectra p251 just a couple of days ago. When i first thought about buying it (it's still my first meter) i was a bit nervous because of the newer, fancier meters but now i'm used to it. you have to realize that once you have some very basic functions (asa, exp. time, aperture) you have everything you need. the other tools are really useful of course but they're not essentials. Since it's all a matter of relationships you can even use all the wrong settings and still infer the right stop (knowing the situation but you don't have to do this). Beside, the l-398 reads directly in FC. Oh i do so like that! ok i'm going OT, what's important is that any (calibrated) light meter will say you something useful, maybe try it first with some stills just to get acquainted.

You can achieve the effect by dressing your room upside down. I.E. putting armchairs on the ceiling and chandeliers on the floor. Not easy nor cheap. The effect in 2001 was achieved by linking the camera to the room, the place where the astronaut walk is esentially a treadmill which runs at the same speed as the room is revolving. The room and the camera turns while the actor remains on the (real) ground (at least that's what i remember). again Not easy nor cheap.

I wanted to answer you but then i remembered Ron Dexter has an article about time lapses on his site. http://www.rondexter.com/professional/effe..._time_lapse.htm I'd still suggest you to use one stop through the entire time lapse, at least for your first test. Have fun and maybe post your results (with all informations about it if you can!)

If you look at it from a certain POV it may even be a good thing since it allows more people to work and not always the same. I know, i know...that's not of any comfort ;)

Seems like a worldwide issue :lol:

Spot on John. I wrote a bit in a hurry so i apologize for the simplistic answer. I also implied that if your meter doesn't read in FC you can't balance your lighting which is wrong. With FC you have an absolute value independent of your meter settings (ASA, FPS, Shutter angle...). Very useful IMHO.

You can use a lightmeter to light the shot. A stop is a stop on both mediums and if your lightmeter reads in footcandles you can balance your lighting. Don't use it to set the exposure tho. quite useless and dangerous.

Everyone can drive a car. Not everyone is a professional race driver.

I was going to directly answer you but then i recalled there were many threads about those very same subjects. You may want to read them first. Hope this helps. ;) http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...amp;hl=darkroom http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...amp;hl=darkroom http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...amp;hl=darkroom http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...398&hl=rain http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...618&hl=rain